Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

View Poll Results: Is Emotion or Intellect more Useful and BenefiI’m not sure/don’t know/cial to Humans?

The problem is, if Emotion did not exist, we would still engage in discovery because our intellect would tell us that its beneficial to ourselves and/or our species survival.

Quite the opposite. Without pesky emotions, we would have ditched agriculture, and gone back to the easy hunter-gatherer lifestyle. The reason we didn't was because it would have entailed mass starvation. But if you don't care about the people starving...

Why are you claiming that a totally intellectual species would not care about mass starvation?

Yes, a desire to end suffering (e.g. famine) can be rooted in emotions through empathy/sympathy. But it can also be from a purely logical/intellectual stance. "The Human genome should continue, and that means preventing premature deaths from starvation and/or disease since anyone affected might be carrying valuable genes".

Why are you claiming that a totally intellectual species would not care about mass starvation?

Yes, a desire to end suffering (e.g. famine) can be rooted in emotions through empathy/sympathy. But it can also be from a purely logical/intellectual stance. "The Human genome should continue, and that means preventing premature deaths from starvation and/or disease since anyone affected might be carrying valuable genes".

Or: "The Human genome should continue, and that means a continuous exposure to starvation and/or disease will have a positive effect through survival of the fittest."

Now decide, the problem is, that what is better, is determined by the assumption that you start with.

__________________I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed

Why are you claiming that a totally intellectual species would not care about mass starvation?

Yes, a desire to end suffering (e.g. famine) can be rooted in emotions through empathy/sympathy. But it can also be from a purely logical/intellectual stance. "The Human genome should continue, and that means preventing premature deaths from starvation and/or disease since anyone affected might be carrying valuable genes".

I don't think that kind of thinking was going on thousands of years ago, do you?

Why are you claiming that a totally intellectual species would not care about mass starvation?

Yes, a desire to end suffering (e.g. famine) can be rooted in emotions through empathy/sympathy. But it can also be from a purely logical/intellectual stance. "The Human genome should continue, and that means preventing premature deaths from starvation and/or disease since anyone affected might be carrying valuable genes".

I don't think that kind of thinking was going on thousands of years ago, do you?

We may not have known about genes or inheritance thousands of years ago. But, I think humans at the time would still have recognized the value in a society that attempts to prevent premature deaths in general because, being intellectual, they would have realized that what could impact other people could also impact you too.

Funny that the posts of this thread's Champion of the Intellect appear so... emotional.
But never mind that...

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Why are you claiming that a totally intellectual species would not care about mass starvation?

Yes, a desire to end suffering (e.g. famine) can be rooted in emotions through empathy/sympathy. But it can also be from a purely logical/intellectual stance. "The Human genome should continue, and that means preventing premature deaths from starvation and/or disease since anyone affected might be carrying valuable genes".

But why? I don't think there's a purely intellectual reason for this. It should continue because we want to continue, because we value ourselves. As far as I can tell any reason for wanting humans to exist that isn't purely utilitarian (we need humans to do X, because that is the most efficient/only way) is always rooted in emotion.

I think there is also a false dichotomy here, there is no clear line between emotions and thought. They are part and parcel of each other.

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

But why? I don't think there's a purely intellectual reason for this. It should continue because we want to continue, because we value ourselves. As far as I can tell any reason for wanting humans to exist that isn't purely utilitarian (we need humans to do X, because that is the most efficient/only way) is always rooted in emotion.

There doesn't have to be an emotional or intellectual reason for the genome of any species to continue. Species don't decide to continue living, they do it by natural default. Call it by instinct if you like. Humans can however decide to not continue living. Usually that's an emotionally unhealthy decision if it's suicide, or a healthy intellectual decision if it's euthanasia.

__________________Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

There doesn't have to be an emotional or intellectual reason for the genome of any species to continue.

I'm not saying there has to be.
I was questioning the assertion that it's possible to have purely intellectual arguments for the desire for self preservation.

Originally Posted by ynot

Species don't decide to continue living, they do it by natural default. Call it by instinct if you like. Humans can however decide to not continue living. Usually that's an emotionally unhealthy decision if it's suicide, or a healthy intellectual decision if it's euthanasia.

And now you're adding a third dimension, instinct?
Okay, where does instinct end and feeling begin?

I'm not saying there has to be.
I was questioning the assertion that it's possible to have purely intellectual arguments for the desire for self preservation.

And now you're adding a third dimension, instinct?
Okay, where does instinct end and feeling begin?

Instinct is not a feeling, but an innate, "hardwired" tendency toward a particular behavior. Instincts are automatic reactions to environmental stimuli and occur in every individual of a species. Self-preservation is the instinctual default desire of all life. Humans can emotionally or intellectually override that desire. Does "purely" have to be 100%, or would 99% do (or predominately)? It would be as impossible to prove that humans can be 100% intellectual or emotional as it would be to prove they can't. And what would be the point even if you could?

__________________Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Well actually humans have reflexes which are like instincts but modal and fixed action patterns are not really established for humans.

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Well actually humans have reflexes which are like instincts but modal and fixed action patterns are not really established for humans.

IMO humans do have instincts, but they’re sometimes harder to spot than in other species because our advanced emotions and intellect tend to override them. Let’s consider three “modal and fixed action patterns” of a newborn before emotion and intellect have had a chance to “kick in”. The first breath of air. The first cry for attention. The first suck for food. I would call all these instinctual actions (instinct to act).

I would call a reflex action an instinctual reaction (instinct to react). Please explain why not if you disagree.

__________________Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Yes, a desire to end suffering (e.g. famine) can be rooted in emotions through empathy/sympathy. But it can also be from a purely logical/intellectual stance. "The Human genome should continue, and that means preventing premature deaths from starvation and/or disease since anyone affected might be carrying valuable genes".

But why? I don't think there's a purely intellectual reason for this. It should continue because we want to continue, because we value ourselves.

The question in this thread is what is more important, intellect or emotion.

In my opinion (yes, its an opinion), self preservation (or preservation of an organism's genes) is something that is neither intellectual nor emotional, but more instinctual. That would put it outside of the 2 options that were given.

Now, if you want to hold the opinion that "desire for self preservation is an emotion" you can certainly do so. However, I think that it expands the definition of "emotion" too far.

After all, do you also consider hunger to be an emotion? What about feeling cold? If you include those as emotions then any creature not wanting to die freezing and hungry is being emotional.

The question in this thread is what is more important, intellect or emotion.

In my opinion (yes, its an opinion), self preservation (or preservation of an organism's genes) is something that is neither intellectual nor emotional, but more instinctual. That would put it outside of the 2 options that were given.

Now, if you want to hold the opinion that "desire for self preservation is an emotion" you can certainly do so. However, I think that it expands the definition of "emotion" too far.

After all, do you also consider hunger to be an emotion? What about feeling cold? If you include those as emotions then any creature not wanting to die freezing and hungry is being emotional.

Well said.

ETA - However (on reflection) I'm sure the argument is that not wanting to die is the emotional bit (regardless of the cause).

It's all a red-herring argument anyway as it's self-evident that all life has a default instinct/desire/compulsion to live that's independent from emotion and intellect. As mentioned earlier, emotion and intellect can override that default, but they don't "kick in" until after life has started.

__________________Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

By that pedantry "logic" everything described as instincts are actually reflexes.

Memo to all lexicographers - Please remove the word "instinct" from all dictionaries.

ETA - Rewrite - My post argued that reflexes are instincts. Can you address that argument?

That is not the standard usage in ethology.
I think that is all I meant, I recall that fixed and modal action patterns are more complex that reflexes.

So the palmar reflex, bambini reflex and blinking are less complex than say instinctual fish mating dances

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

When theists arrive at my door to tell me the good message of their particular savior I usually say - "Sorry, but it would be a waste of time because I'm a realist". Their enlightened eyes light up even more, and their plastic smiles broaden even more, and they exclaim enthusiastically - "So are we!" The poor fools actually believe they are! I guess if you can believe in a magical, invisible sky-daddy you can believe anything.

I can't deal with door-to-door missionaries, but I'm beginning to think many people function better with basically an emotional framework around them. I might even say a "faith-based framework," but I'm not talking strictly about religion. Patriotism, an all-consuming passion, wanting to always be "in love" - any number of lifestyles would qualify. I'm pretty cerebral myself and it's a barrier, sometimes, to becoming immersed in common cause with other humans.

If that were the case, then believing in things would in some cases be a form of realism. Realistically dealing with our own emotional natures, which I'm not sure can be cleanly separated from reason in any event.

I mean, what the reason for people to be obsessed by having their own biological descendants? It's not necessarily reasonable but pretty damn functional from a species population standpoint.

There doesn't have to be an emotional or intellectual reason for the genome of any species to continue. Species don't decide to continue living, they do it by natural default. Call it by instinct if you like.

HINT – If you don’t like call it whatever you do like. But whatever you call it, all life has a default [insert word of your choice] to live and continue it’s species.

__________________Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

I can't deal with door-to-door missionaries, but I'm beginning to think many people function better with basically an emotional framework around them. I might even say a "faith-based framework," but I'm not talking strictly about religion. Patriotism, an all-consuming passion, wanting to always be "in love" - any number of lifestyles would qualify. I'm pretty cerebral myself and it's a barrier, sometimes, to becoming immersed in common cause with other humans.

If that were the case, then believing in things would in some cases be a form of realism. Realistically dealing with our own emotional natures, which I'm not sure can be cleanly separated from reason in any event.

That people really have beliefs doesn’t make their beliefs actually real and the believers actual realists. “Belief reality” is at best “fantasy”, the opposite of reality. The “poor fools” don’t know the difference between their beliefs and reality. If you think that’s “realistically dealing with our own emotional natures” then you’re also a “poor fool”.

__________________Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

That people really have beliefs doesn’t make their beliefs actually real and the believers actual realists. “Belief reality” is at best “fantasy”, the opposite of reality. The “poor fools” don’t know the difference between their beliefs and reality. If you think that’s “realistically dealing with our own emotional natures” then you’re also a “poor fool”.

Yes, and as things currently stand it can be argued to be totally irrational choice to make.

What's happening is that people in industrialized nations - enough of the people, anyway - seem to be losing the imperative to reproduce, while in underdeveloped areas the instinct/emotion remains strong. And often for an underlying practical reason: With high childhood mortality and a poor social safety net, bearing 8 or 10 or more children is rationally defensible as insurance for old age.

In the past 100+ years that imperative has fallen away in select portions of the world. Yet infertility is a cause of real anguish for some couples, to the extent that infertility is considered a medical condition to be addressed with government-funded IVF treatments. People who never wanted kids are paying other people to reproduce. What's the basis for that practice - intellect or emotion?

I think it's a bad question because it suggests that emotion and intellect are opposites or enemies, which they're not. They're different, sure, but they also overlap and intersect, and the poll is like asking whether your hands or your feet are more important. It sort of depends on what you're doing. Next poll: would you rather choke or drown?

__________________I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.